You can find quotes today from Winnik (who is on the negotiating committee) that it's to get negotiations going. Kessel saying that since it worked for NBA and NFL he's hoping it would work here.

The players aren't looking at this as a nuclear option. No quote over several months seems to suggest this. They view it just as something that will get them leverage in the negotiations.

Yes, there have been several quotes that suggest players are thinking of the DOI as a way to push for a quicker deal... but I wouldn't say "no quote seems to suggest" players looking at a completely different system:

"Guys are going to be pretty highly in favor of it," Horcoff told ESPN The Magazine. "I’ve been in conference calls with 200-300 players. We just feel at this point the union has done everything they can for us and we’re not getting anywhere. It’s time for us to go in a different direction." http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...claimer-coming

So he's telling the players he hasn't done a good job, and has given them the ability to give the Executive Comittee the option of allowing him to remove himself as an admission of defeat?

I misjudged him; he's a true Samurai, and his sword that he impales himself with should be enshrined.

So dramatic, Timmy?

I believe this is a strategy in one of two directions the PA can choose-- take the last NHL offer, or worse, because they refuse to talk further, or go the DOI route. Those options have been put forth by the PA leadership and it seems the PA prefers that to caving. Fehr cannot force the NHL to propose a better deal. You know that so it seems odd that you're trying to make this out about Fehr.

Yes, there have been several quotes that suggest players are thinking of the DOI as a way to push for a quicker deal... but I wouldn't say "no quote seems to suggest" players looking at a completely different system:

"Guys are going to be pretty highly in favor of it," Horcoff told ESPN The Magazine. "I’ve been in conference calls with 200-300 players. We just feel at this point the union has done everything they can for us and we’re not getting anywhere. It’s time for us to go in a different direction." http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...claimer-coming

This was during the sudden silence from the players after the NHL suit, where decertification was claimed to be a negotiation ploy. Horcoff's message might be the most transparent in this whole affair.

This was during the sudden silence from the players after the NHL suit, where decertification was claimed to be a negotiation ploy. Horcoff's message might be the most transparent in this whole affair.

This sounds like they're giving up on collective bargaining to me:

"I’ve been in conference calls with 200-300 players. We just feel at this point the union has done everything they can for us and we’re not getting anywhere. It’s time for us to go in a different direction."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timmy

The Courts may not dig that.

If I wasn't, you'd think my account was hacked.

It's usually sarcastic wit, not the drama so much.

I think people are putting too much value on what individuals say. It's not really relevant, and this is dynamic. Someone who didn't imagine decertification as an option in September may feel differently now.

Precedence is clear though. The lockout may be deemed legal, but that doesn't mean the players have to remain in a union, or that they're precluded from filing anti trust claims.

"I’ve been in conference calls with 200-300 players. We just feel at this point the union has done everything they can for us and we’re not getting anywhere. It’s time for us to go in a different direction."

This sounds like they have realized that every player quoted indicating that players view decertification as a negotiation ploy doesn't help with a court case where players are accused of using the threat of decertification as a negotiation ploy.

3 questions:
If this goes to its full extent, is there anything the owners can do to maintain a Salary Cap?
If not, then how ultimately could this effect the League, IF again the players should choose to maintain the status of not having a union?
And also, if the owners can't have a Salary Cap when there's no players' union, is that then really one of the primary objectives with this move by the players, to directly destroy the Cap?

This sounds like they have realized that every player quoted indicating that players view decertification as a negotiation ploy doesn't help with a court case where players are accused of using the threat of decertification as a negotiation ploy.